Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals

Published on Oct 1, 2008in Journal of Advanced Nursing2.38
· DOI :10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x
Judith Gedney Baggs21
Estimated H-index: 21
(OHSU: Oregon Health & Science University),
Marion E. Broome32
Estimated H-index: 32
(IUPUI: Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis)
+ 2 AuthorsMargaret H. Kearney26
Estimated H-index: 26
(UR: University of Rochester)
Title. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Aim. This paper is a report of a study to assess the beliefs and preferences of reviewers for nursing journals about blinding of authors to reviewers, reviewers to authors, neither or both. Background. Blinding of author and reviewer names in the manuscript review process has been of interest to nursing editors, but reports that are based on data rather than simply opinion concern the editorial practices of biomedical rather than nursing journals. There has been no study of nursing journal reviewer beliefs and preferences related to blinding. Method. A descriptive web-based survey was conducted. The sample included 1675 anonymous reviewers, recruited through 52 editors of nursing journals from their review panels. Data were collected in 2007. Findings. Double-blinding of reviews was the most common method reported. Ninety per cent of respondents reported that the papers they received to review did not include author names. When author names were blinded, 62% of reviewers could not identify the authors of papers; another 17% could identify authors £10% of the time. Double-blinding was the method preferred by 93AE6% of reviewers, although some identified some advantages to an unblinded open review process. Conclusion. Nursing journal reviewers are generally very satisfied with doubleblinding and believe it contributes to the quality of papers published. Editors or editorial boards interested in a more open review process could consider alternatives such as offering authors and reviewers the option to unblind themselves. Simply announcing that the review process will henceforth be unblinded would probably lead to loss of reviewers.
  • References (33)
  • Citations (44)
Published on Dec 1, 2008in Journal of Nursing Scholarship2.54
Margaret H. Kearney26
Estimated H-index: 26
(UR: University of Rochester),
Judith Gedney Baggs21
Estimated H-index: 21
+ 2 AuthorsMargaret Comerford Freda20
Estimated H-index: 20
(Yeshiva University)
Purpose: To describe nursing journal reviewers' professional backgrounds, reviewing experience, time investment, and perceptions of their role. Design: Exploratory descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: A 69-question survey containing both fixed-option and open-ended questions and accessed via the World Wide Web was completed by 1,675 nursing journal reviewers who had been invited to participate by editors of 52 nursing journals. Findings: Participants were from 44 countries, with 74% from ...
Published on Jan 1, 2008in Trends in Ecology and Evolution15.24
Amber E. Budden15
Estimated H-index: 15
(UCSB: University of California, Santa Barbara),
Tom Tregenza42
Estimated H-index: 42
(University of Exeter)
+ 3 AuthorsChristopher J. Lortie32
Estimated H-index: 32
(York University)
Double-blind peer review, in which neither author nor reviewer identity are revealed, is rarely practised in ecology or evolution journals. However, in 2001, double-blind review was introduced by the journal Behavioral Ecology . Following this policy change, there was a significant increase in female first-authored papers, a pattern not observed in a very similar journal that provides reviewers with author information. No negative effects could be identified, suggesting that double-blind review ...
Published on Sep 1, 2006in Medical Education4.62
Glenn Regehr66
Estimated H-index: 66
(U of T: University of Toronto),
Georges Bordage36
Estimated H-index: 36
(UIC: University of Illinois at Chicago)
Objective In order to inform discussions about possible changes to Medical Education's blinding policy, members of the journal's editorial board were interested in discovering reviewers' and authors' preferences with regard to the current double-blind policy and various alternatives. Methods In September 2005, an 8-question, web-based survey was sent to all authors and reviewers who had submitted or reviewed a manuscript for Medical Education in 2003 and 2004 (n = 2632). The questions asked abou...
Published on Apr 12, 2006in JAMA51.27
Joseph S. Ross50
Estimated H-index: 50
(Yale University),
Cary P. Gross52
Estimated H-index: 52
(Yale University)
+ 7 AuthorsHarlan M. Krumholz167
Estimated H-index: 167
(Yale University)
ContextPeer review should evaluate the merit and quality of abstracts but may be biased by geographic location or institutional prestige. The effectiveness of blinded peer review at reducing bias is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of blinded review on the association between abstract characteristics and likelihood of abstract acceptance at a national research meeting.Design and SettingAll abstracts submitted to the American Heart Association's annual Scientific Sessions research meeting ...
Published on Dec 1, 2005in Research in Nursing & Health1.68
Margaret H. Kearney26
Estimated H-index: 26
(UR: University of Rochester),
Margaret Comerford Freda20
Estimated H-index: 20
(Albert Einstein College of Medicine)
A growing body of research challenges the inter-rater reliability of peer reviewers and the value of reviewer training or blinding in improving the quality of manuscript reviews, but double-blinded peer review of papers remains a relatively unexamined standard for nursing journals. Using data from a larger emailed survey, the views of 88 nurse editors on peer review were analyzed using content analysis. The majority of nurse editors reported that blinding was important in peer review, to maintai...
Published on Jul 1, 2004in Nursing Research2.02
Molly C. Dougherty24
Estimated H-index: 24
Published on Apr 1, 2003in American Journal of Nursing1.35
Mason Dj1
Estimated H-index: 1
Published on Nov 1, 2002in The Journal of Urology5.65
Joseph A. Smith23
Estimated H-index: 23
(VUMC: Vanderbilt University Medical Center),
Randall Nixon1
Estimated H-index: 1
(VUMC: Vanderbilt University Medical Center)
+ 2 AuthorsHector H. Henry1
Estimated H-index: 1
(VUMC: Vanderbilt University Medical Center)
ABSTRACTPurpose: A procedure whereby reviewers are not informed of the author or institutional identity for submitted abstracts is sometimes considered a more equitable and impartial process for selection of the content for a scientific program. We performed a prospective randomized study to evaluate the impact of a reviewer blinding process on scientific program content.Materials and Methods: A total of 234 abstracts submitted for presentation at the 2001 meeting of the Southeastern Section of ...
Published on Sep 1, 2002in Nursing Research2.02
Virginia P. Tilden28
Estimated H-index: 28
Cited By44
Published on Feb 27, 2019
Tony Ross-Hellauer3
Estimated H-index: 3
(Graz University of Technology),
Edit Görögh1
Estimated H-index: 1
Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a clear need for best practice guidelines to guide implementation. This brief article aims to address this knowledge gap, reporting work based on an interactive stakeholder workshop to create best-practice guidelines for ...
Published on Feb 1, 2018in Toxicologic Pathology1.38
David B. Resnik30
Estimated H-index: 30
(NIH: National Institutes of Health),
Susan A. Elmore20
Estimated H-index: 20
(NIH: National Institutes of Health)
Published on Jan 1, 2018in arXiv: Digital Libraries
Peer review is a process designed to produce a fair assessment of research quality prior to publication of scholarly work in a journal. Demographics, nepotism, and seniority have been all shown to affect reviewer behavior suggesting the most common, single-blind review method (or the less common open review method) might be biased. A survey of current research suggests that double-blind review offers a solution to many biases stemming from author's gender, seniority, or location without imposing...
Published on Jul 20, 2017in F1000Research
Jonathan P. Tennant9
Estimated H-index: 9
(Imperial College London),
Jonathan M. Dugan2
Estimated H-index: 2
(University of California, Berkeley)
+ 30 AuthorsTom Crick11
Estimated H-index: 11
(Cardiff Metropolitan University)
Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With...
Published on Jul 1, 2017in Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery3.92
Joshua A. Hirsch48
Estimated H-index: 48
(Harvard University),
Laxmaiah Manchikanti69
Estimated H-index: 69
(University of Louisville)
+ 7 AuthorsRobert W Tarr24
Estimated H-index: 24
Peer review of scientific articles submitted for publication has been such an integral component of innovation in science and medicine that participants (be they readers, reviewers, or editors) seldom consider its complexity. Not surprisingly, much has been written about scientific peer review. The aim of this report is to share some of the elements of that discourse with readers of the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery ( JNIS ).
Published on Jul 1, 2017in Research Evaluation2.88
M Solans Domenech3
Estimated H-index: 3
(Open University of Catalonia),
Imma Guillamón3
Estimated H-index: 3
+ 4 AuthorsJoan M. V. Pons i Ràfols13
Estimated H-index: 13
To blind or not researcher’s identity has often been a topic of debate in the context of peer-review process for scientific publication and research grant application. This article reports on how knowing the name and experience of researchers/institutions influences the qualification of a proposal. We present our experience of managing the peer-review process of different biomedical research grants. The peer-review process included three evaluation stages: first, blinded assessment; second, unbl...
Published on Mar 21, 2017in eLife7.55
Markus Helmer2
Estimated H-index: 2
(Yale University),
Manuel Schottdorf4
Estimated H-index: 4
(MPG: Max Planck Society)
+ 1 AuthorsDemian Battaglia14
Estimated H-index: 14
(AMU: Aix-Marseille University)
Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise alone. However, it is difficult to check for any bias in the peer-review process because the identity of peer reviewers generally remains confidential. Here, using public information about the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show that women are underrepresented in the peer-review process, that editors...
Published on Feb 1, 2017in American Journal of Neuroradiology3.26
Erin E. O'Connor3
Estimated H-index: 3
(TU: Temple University),
M. Cousar1
Estimated H-index: 1
(TU: Temple University)
+ 3 AuthorsTimothy Zeffiro3
Estimated H-index: 3
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Many scientific journals use double-blind peer review to minimize potential reviewer bias concerning publication recommendations. However, because neuroradiology is a relatively small subspecialty, this process may be limited by prior knowledge of the authors9 work or associated institutions. We sought to investigate the efficacy of reviewer blinding and determine the impact that unblinding may have on manuscript acceptance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For manuscripts submitte...
Published on Jan 1, 2017
Pali U. K. De Silva2
Estimated H-index: 2
(MSU: Murray State University),
Candace K. Vance2
Estimated H-index: 2
(MSU: Murray State University)
Peer review of scholarly articles is a mechanism used to assess and preserve the trustworthiness of reporting of scientific findings. Since peer reviewing is a qualitative evaluation system that involves the judgment of experts in a field about the quality of research performed by their colleagues (and competitors), it inherently encompasses a strongly subjective element. Although this time-tested system, which has been evolving since the mid-eighteenth century, is being questioned and criticize...
View next paperNurse editors' views on the peer review process.